More lies from that dahling of the right Christine O'Donnell... - New England Patriots Forums

***DarrylS*** · 09-29-2010, 04:41 AM

The great savior of the right, the symbol of all things chaste has once again been caught is a couple of more "gotcha" moments.. apparently she has been lyin about her education.. what else is she lying about. Maybe she had a couple of moments of self induced gratification...

But she did stay at a holiday inn last night

I walked through Harvard Square several times, ergo I can now put on my resume that I studied at Harvard... is lying a christian value??

The Plum Line - Another Christine O'Donnell embellishment: She misleadingly claims she studied at Oxford

Quote:

O'Donnell's LinkedIn bio page lists "University of Oxford" as one of the schools she attended, claiming she studied "Post Modernism in the New Millennium." But it turns out that was just a course conducted by an institution known as the Phoenix Institute, which merely rented space at Oxford.

What's more, the woman who oversaw Phoenix Institute's summer program at Oxford tells me O'Donnell's claim about studying at Oxford is "misleading."

She lied about attending Princeton...

Bill Kristol on Christine O’Donnell: No Sarah Palin – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Quote:

Barnes and Kristol got drawn into this catfight because of a story in the Weekly Standard. On Sunday writer John McCormack reported that back in 2005 O'Donnell filed a lawsuit asking for $6.9 million dollars in damages for alleged gender discrimination and wrongful termination by a non profit called the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. In addition to sharing some eyebrow raising details about the alleged harassment, the article questions a claim in the lawsuit that O'Donnell was trying to "take master's degree classes at Princeton". According to the Weekly Standard, the lawsuit states: "Miss O'Donnell has lost the increased earning power that a Master's degree from Princeton would have created. In the future with proper finances, Miss O'Donnell should probably be able to return and complete that program…"

The problem? O'Donnell never took even a single graduate course at Princeton university, something she acknowledges to CNN.

Oops! O'Donnell Fudged Calif. U Credential, Too - Another day, another fib

Quote:

Newser) – Oxford isn't the only school Delaware senate candidate Christine O'Donnell didn't attend, no matter how many times she might say that she did. "Claremont Graduate University has no student or education record for an individual named Christine O'Donnell," says a unequivocal statement from the school in answer to the latest fib to surface in the Tea Partier's campaign. O'Donnel lists "Claremont Graduate University" on her LinkedIn profile, just as she lists Oxford, which she also never attended.

She also mentions in her campaign site bio a 2002 "graduate fellowship" from California's Claremont Institute think tank, which does exist, but it doesn't offer a "graduate" fellowship, which would imply one has graduated from college. O'Donnell did graduate—from Farleigh Dickenson—just this month, though she had been claiming she graduated years ago, notes Talking Points Memo. For more on her growing list of credential fudges, click here.

khayos · 09-29-2010, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

The great savior of the right, the symbol of all things chaste has once again been caught is a couple of more "gotcha" moments.. apparently she has been lyin about her education.. what else is she lying about. Maybe she had a couple of moments of self induced gratification...

Whomever billed her as the "great savior of the right" needs their head examined; if anyone gets that title nowadays it's going to be Chris Christie.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 09-29-2010, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khayos

Whomever billed her as the "great savior of the right" needs their head examined; if anyone gets that title nowadays it's going to be Chris Christie.

I think that's some of the trouble with the Christine O'Donnell's and the Sarah Palin and the Sharron Angles of the Tea Party/Republican conservatives. They are being given the lion's (or the Grizzly's) share of the attention and the money and it's people like Chris Christie who really deserve it and who would be the most likely people to be able to appeal to moderates of both parties.

Christie has done his homework, he's worked hard and he's personable - plus he's intelligent something which actually holds appeal for a large group of people.

I'm unsure why The Tea Party has latched onto the Mama Grizzly type - I'm sure it's a great photo-op but honestly, men who simply want to look at pictures of pretty woman usually buy magazines which are specifically geared to that desire.

I'd be hard pressed to find something negative to say about Christie, not so Christine.

I think that applies to more "lefties" than just myself.

***patsfan13*** · 09-29-2010, 08:06 AM

Joe Biden is a plagerist you have no problem with that, she is a big step up morally from that.

BTW she will vote to defund and repeal Obamacare and vote against cap and trade.

khayos · 09-29-2010, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs.PatsFanInVa

I think that's some of the trouble with the Christine O'Donnell's and the Sarah Palin and the Sharron Angles of the Tea Party/Republican conservatives. They are being given the lion's (or the Grizzly's) share of the attention and the money and it's people like Chris Christie who really deserve it and who would be the most likely people to be able to appeal to moderates of both parties.

Christie has done his homework, he's worked hard and he's personable - plus he's intelligent something which actually holds appeal for a large group of people.

I'm unsure why The Tea Party has latched onto the Mama Grizzly type - I'm sure it's a great photo-op but honestly, men who simply want to look at pictures of pretty woman usually buy magazines which are specifically geared to that desire.

I'd be hard pressed to find something negative to say about Christie, not so Christine.

I think that applies to more "lefties" than just myself.

The Mama Grizzlies get coverage because of the media... they don't tend to go against say a Carly Fiorina or Kelly Ayotte. Heck, I haven't heard much about Nikki Haley since that fake blogger scandal happened.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 09-29-2010, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khayos

The Mama Grizzlies get coverage because of the media... .

That works both ways, though, doesn't it? Who gives them more coverage and interview time than FOXNews? Heck, due to the fact that they've actually been told by Sarah to avoid the "lamestream media" and give exclusive interviews only to FOX it's pretty much assured, isn't it?

I know the common complaint is "mainstream media makes us look bad," but the truth is, no one can make you "look bad," without your assistance. If there's nothing being said or done which comes across as stupid it can't be made up on live TV. It's either there or it isn't. To complain that the questions are "too hard," or "gotcha" questions shows nothing but ill-preparedness on the part of the person being interviewed.

Speaking of which - did anyone catch the interview on MSNBC of dorky little Levi Johnson? The interview questions were, for the most part, no brainers. His answers were, for the most part, indicitive of a 3rd grader suffering from arrested development.

It was not the fault of the interviewer or the TV station itself, it was Levi Johnson's fault.

One more beef about "Mama Grizzlies," before I go.

Why do they even need a clever gimmicky group title? Why the need to stress their motherhood or their femalehood? Women are supposed to be equal - not separate and apart. Hilary and Golda and every other female who's gone before them has proven that women can stand on their own two feet and compete as equals without feeling the need to resort to "sisterhood" or to try to be special because of their status as women.

khayos · 09-29-2010, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs.PatsFanInVa

That works both ways, though, doesn't it? Who gives them more coverage and interview time than FOXNews? Heck, due to the fact that they've actually been told by Sarah to avoid the "lamestream media" and give exclusive interviews only to FOX it's pretty much assured, isn't it?

I know the common complaint is "mainstream media makes us look bad," but the truth is, no one can make you "look bad," without your assistance. If there's nothing being said or done which comes across as stupid it can't be made up on live TV. It's either there or it isn't. To complain that the questions are "too hard," or "gotcha" questions shows nothing but ill-preparedness on the part of the person being interviewed.

Speaking of which - did anyone catch the interview on MSNBC of dorky little Levi Johnson? The interview questions were, for the most part, no brainers. His answers were, for the most part, indicitive of a 3rd grader suffering from arrested development.

It was not the fault of the interviewer or the TV station itself, it was Levi Johnson's fault.

One more beef about "Mama Grizzlies," before I go.

Why do they even need a clever gimmicky group title? Why the need to stress their motherhood or their femalehood? Women are supposed to be equal - not separate and apart. Hilary and Golda and every other female who's gone before them has proven that women can stand on their own two feet and compete as equals without feeling the need to resort to "sisterhood" or to try to be special because of their status as women.

I'm pretty sure the "Mama Grizzly" bit is a counter to the "Feminist", where the former is Pro Life and the latter is implied Pro Choice. I just said media -- both sides find them newsworthy but just because of that, I wouldn't elevate them in reverence.

***patsfan13*** · 09-29-2010, 08:29 AM

The female Tea Party women are especially threatening (along with black conservatives) and the MSM will smear them in way they would never attack a lib, so Palin's advice is spot on, no reason to give the media free shots for gotcha attacks.

Focus on the issues, which as we see this cycle is the way to go.

Dem incumbents are doing all personal attack ads (politics of personal destruction..) since they can't defend their votes and are running away from the administration policies.

The Brandon Five · 09-29-2010, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

"Claremont Graduate University has no student or education record for an individual named Christine O'Donnell," says a unequivocal statement from the school in answer to the latest fib to surface in the Tea Partier's campaign. O'Donnel lists "Claremont Graduate University" on her LinkedIn profile, just as she lists Oxford, which she also never attended.

I am not arguing about O"Donnell's record, but is this public info? Doesn't she have to clear it before it can be released? How is it that Obama's undergraduate records are a state secret but this stuff is available upon request?

To wit (from the Claremont website):

Quote:

What We Can Do For You
CGU complies with all requirements of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Unless the prior written consent of the student is provided, only the following information (directory information) may be disclosed.
• Name
• CGU email address (for current students only)
• Degree/certificate program of study
• Concentration of study
• Dates of attendance
• Degrees or certificates received
• Degree or certificate conferral date

I can't find it on the Occidental site, but wouldn't the same rules apply? Columbia has similar policies, with the exception that a student can request that directory information not be released:

Quote:

First, if a student requests that their educational records be released to a third party, or the student specifically consents to the release, the University will comply. Sometimes students make such a request or consent in connection with an application to another university or an application for employment, and the University's Registrar's Office releases educational records in those instances. Occasionally, also in connection with a student's application for employment, an FBI agent or other official may contact people at the University as part of a "background check" about a student. If you are contacted as part of a "background check" about another person, you do not need to cooperate. However, cooperation may very well assist the person in securing employment. In any event, before you cooperate, you should ask to see a document setting forth the person's written consent to the release of their educational records.

Second, the University releases "directory information" about a student without the student's consent, unless the student has completed a request to withhold directory information. Directory information at Columbia includes each student's name, address, telephone listing and certain other categories of information that are specified in the University's FERPA policy published in FACETS. Students’ names, addresses and telephone listings are available freely through the University's web "directory." If you are a student attending Columbia and do not want "directory information" about you to be released, you should contact John Carter at the Office of the Registrar (at 854-1458) about the procedures to follow (or for more information see Privacy Rights on the Registrar's webpage. If you follow these procedures, directory information about you will not be released to anybody without a judicial order or lawful subpoena.

Privacy of Student Information

The Princeton site only mentions that "Enrollment Verification" can be requested by the student (in writing).

How To Obtain Enrollment Verification « Office of the Registrar

So I guess she should have just claimed she went to Columbia!

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 09-29-2010, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

The female Tea Party women are especially threatening (along with black conservatives) and the MSM will smear them in way they would never attack a lib, so Palin's advice is spot on, no reason to give the media free shots for gotcha attacks.

I will ask you again, 13. How can they "get ya" if you're not got-able? And, for the record, once again, no one feels "threatened" by them. They are simply too unbelievable to cause that kind of consternation.

Quote:

Dem incumbents are doing all personal attack ads (politics of personal destruction..) since they can't defend their votes and are running away from the administration policies.

And I'm sure Republican and Tea Party candidates would never stoop so low as to personally attack their opponent, would they?

When a person is running for the first time, 13, and has little or no experience in the political world, what is their opponent supposed to counter-act if not their personal stance on issues? Very few of the Tea Party candidates have a voting record to defend or explain. There is nothing to refute other than the information publicly available and whatever they've said about themselves. No one can "destroy" their political actions, they haven't taken any - the only thing an opponent has to work with is what they offer - which is nothing but personal history.